Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Sounds to me like another bisexual who thinks "plunged into invisible darkness" means "not talking about MEEEEEE".
No offense intended to bisexuals without this personality disorder.
The bill will not be exclusionary; the LW will be able to marry either gender preferred. She can marry a man now in a "straight" marriage, no matter how she defines herself or they define their marriage. Soon she'll be able to marry a woman in a "gay" marriage and she can still define herself and her marriage however she'd like.
She cannot/will not be able to enter into a "bi" marriage, since currently-defined marriage requires you choose one person. So, is LW looking for polygamy? Is that what she's suggesting we make legal?
What if 2 women and 1 guy want to get married?
Stop whining because you weren't called out specifically in a speech, gay marriage and marriage equality mean the same thing. Perhaps that invisible darkness comes from having your head stuck in your ass.
Goddammit, Dominic, why'd you post this whiny self-absorbed tripe? Now I'm mad at bisexuals, and I am one, so that's a problem.
Isn't darkness invisible by definition?
This whining might carry more weight if said letter writer wasn't in a marriage-track LTR (at least based on what she said) with someone she can already legally marry ... like seemingly 90% of all bisexual women.
Actually, no, it would still be weird if she was in a relationship with a woman and crying over the wording of a law that would enable her to marry her gf.
This is Marriage Equality.
"Why not frame the words in a way that does not make the LGBT marriage campaign strictly for gays and lesbians?"
Because bisexuals can already get married to opposite-sex partners and trans individuals are covered by this movement. All rights are being fought for.
@5: "The end product is the same, just the language is less inclusive. I would say just focus on the end result and realize that politics are inconsiderate of minorities, generally speaking."
Right. Fight for your rights, then fight for the public to use the most appropriate language.
At some point we have to take responsibility for our own lives; fighting for marriage equality is right and good, but allowing one's sense of self worth to be dependent on the wording choices of a politician is a bridge too far.
So while we can discuss sexual mores here on the Slog at an adult level (for the most part-- lookin' at you, SB), Gregoire still has to address the rest of Washington like they're pre-schoolers.
I have long believed that we as a society should give the religious dweebs what they want: ownership of the word marriage. And 'we the people' should only issue "civil union" licenses. Any adult could choose one other adult to legally bind themselves; romance and the ideals of marriage might have nothing to do with one’s choice. Then people can feel free to toss around the terms husband, wife, gf, bf, partner, marriage, as they wish to – it would be a self-defined term and the religious nut-jobs could claim ownership of its definition all they want.
Shut the f*** up, as people have already said. This bill lets you marry whoever the hell you want.
Oh, you want a triad marriage? A (whatever it is past that) marriage? Great. Rewrite all the freaking property laws and inheritance laws to deal with when your stupid ass hasn't left a will. Then we'll talk. Otherwise, everything else is set up so that when two PEOPLE marry, pretty much everything else is gonna get handled.
I'm all for this bill. I'm all for any single person being able to marry any other single person they f***ing want to. This is NOT a trans issue. This is NOT a bi issue. This is straight up f***ing equality.
You're wanting special rights, not equal rights. Get in line.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/speeches/spee…
That is, if you want to get same-sex married. That is to say I support same sex marriages for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Of course the bisexuals can also marry someone of the opposite sex, unless they don't want to. Not that I want to categorize everyone rigidly, I also support the right of the intersexed and pansexual to marry...uhm...whoever it is they marry. Not that you have to be sexual, I also support the rights of asexuals to marry and not have sex. I am fully supportive of the rights of transgendered men who are bisexually asexual to marry in any and all configurations.
Fit THAT on a headline.
My guess is that it wasn't explicit enough for her liking.
" this would not qualify me under her speech. There are also my transgendered friends, who do not fall under the premises of her speech, who would not be considered nor consider themselves "same sex" as her support explicitly states"
This legislation ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to redefine marriage as not requiring a "man and woman". It is the first step, not the entirety of the struggle.
(NSFW-ish)
In 2003, Canada recognized the constitutional civil right of gay people to obtain marriage licenses, regardless of the sex of the person they wanted to legally marry...and all the gays and lesbians and transgendered folk who live here and wanted to get hitched didn't get "same-sex married", or "trans-married", the just got MARRIED .
The rest of it...ZOMG. I feel dumber for reading it.
Snort. Some deviant you are.
"is there a way we can make this more about me? that's be great. thx."
p.s. seattleseven, @50 - LOVE IT.
Please explain how the term "same-sex marriage" is not inclusive, and also say what term you'd prefer.
I'm not trying to be snarky here - I'm just bewildered that you find injury in this.
So I guess, Shaunita, that you can blame bisexual activists for the language that the governor uses. I suppose you think bi activists have not gone far enough? Frankly, the issue of bi visibility is fraught with all kinds of semantic pitfalls, sometimes without any conscious intent. In my opinion, "marriage equality" is a great statement--by implication, it includes gender variance more than "same-sex marriage"--but I still don't think that in all cases it makes gender variant bisexuals significantly more visible. Something to work on.
And this sort of confusion really doesn't help bisexual activists at all. One big complaint that gays and lesbians have is that bisexuals don't acknowledge how society privileges us when we're in opposite-sex relationships. Even those of us in OS relationships who are very open about the fact that we're bi, not straight, and fight against bi erasure, still get our relationships recognized and celebrated by the state and society in a way they wouldn't be if they were same-sex. Acting like her opposite-sex marriage needs to be roped in with the same-sex marriage cause is the kind of myopia that rightly gets called out by LGs.
There is a good conversation to be had about how the use of GAY marriage and GAY rights excludes the bisexuals to whom it also applies. (One that particularly irks me is the tendency lately for anti-bullying activists to refer to "gay and transgender" or "gay, lesbian and transgender" students, as though specifically leaving out the B in LGBT.) But this isn't that conversation.
I'm guessing Dan would approve too, since he's the one who pokes fun of us whenever we complain about invisibility.
I'd say publishing this letter was worth it just to read Whoop Di Do's interesting and informed comment.
Obviously far and away the most important thing about removing the sex/gender restriction on the parties to a marriage is the equality of access to marriage for all people including same-sex couples. But as a straight woman, I will admit to enjoying it from a feminist perspective - because I am convinced that some part of the cognitive dissonance the jesus freaks have about same-sex marriage boils down to, "But if two dudes get married, which one owns the other?!??" So in that sense, state-sanctioned same-sex marriage might indeed destroy their conception of what marriage is, by redefining it as a relationship of two equal partners.
Just a little bonus.
This. Yes. Abso-fucking-lutely.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
Seriously, just because you CAN post anonymous snarky witticisms doesn't mean you should. It just makes us look like the same kind of immature bullies that target gay people for being self-centered enough to whine to the other 90% of the world about how unfair it is they can't adopt or get married or whatever bullshit they think they deserve now.
...So yeah, sometimes it's hard to comment respectfully about ideas you don't believe, especially when you're in the majority. But it'd be a hell of a lot more welcoming around here if people tried writing "I don't have a problem with the semantics," instead of ganging up on someone who feels strongly about an issue that doesn't bother the rest of us.
Secondly, why do you assume that because we disagree with the LW, that we put up with people saying shit like "bisexual people don't exist"? I call out biphobia all the time, and in fact, a big part of my beef with this letter is that it makes it so much harder for us to get real, genuine biphobia taken seriously when people see bis like this LW complaining about nothing and claiming to speak for the entire bi community when they do.
TL;DR - If you're such a great bisexual activist, actually read what your fellow bis have to say and stop being so fucking condescending.